Saturday, 31 January 2015

After the electoral success of Syriza in Greece, comes a massive demonstration in favour of Podemos in Madrid's Plaza del Sol. The British left has been quick to see Syriza as the start of something. Surely there is about to be an Iberian repeat of that anti-austerity win, which will kill the Euro-zone's austerity policies off for good?Hmm, not necessarily. Things are still a little more stable in Spain, despite some serious economic challenges, such as having one in four people unemployed. And the movements aren't really the same, either.As usual with these things, there is an easy narrative: in this case, to class both movements as popular uprisings of the left against capitalism. But whereas Syriza really is essentially an unreconstructed party of the radical left, more the equivalent of Respect in the UK, Podemos is a more anti-politics-as-usual force, not so clearly aligned and mostly supported by Spaniards of all stripes who are genuinely disgusted with traditional parties.

Thursday, 29 January 2015

For the last few years, Labour Uncut - and this blog - have been repeating pretty much the same message: the Tories will mainly fight this election on two things: leadership and the economy.

They haven’t disappointed. So far, they seem to have been talking about little else.

Thing is, at this point the argument over the economy is a difficult one. To the politically-attuned, the Tories may just be perceived – even among their own supporters – as having called their last Budget badly and overdone austerity. But among ordinary folk, the reality is that Labour is still not trusted on the economy and that this would tend to trump unease with the Tories.

The logic is not exactly complex: “Labour will borrow more” is the Tory attack line. Labour’s strategy is to reply with the economically correct, and yet politically inept, response that we will leave the door open to borrow, but only to invest.

As if the average voter is likely to distinguish between leaving the door open and doing, or between capital and expense accounting in their feelings about the two main parties.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

So, apart from being a great nation who made a partial recovery after a great humiliation; vigorous rearmament; piecemeal neighbour-annexing; pursuing ultra-nationalist policies; persecuting minorities and any critics of the regime; a charismatic leader propagating a dual narrative for the country of both macho strength and victimhood; a controversial Olympics used as a propaganda tool for a nationalist resurgence; continuing to pretend to cooperate with Europe's governments and then break its promises; and cultivating appeasers abroad, there was clearly a very good reason why Russia was different from pre-war Germany. Russia was not in a major economic crisis.

Until now. As the Economist pointed out yesterday, largely thanks to the tanking oil price, Russian bonds are already practically junk.

So, a recap of those ten remaining reasons why Russia and pre-war Germany are different again:

Russia has nuclear weapons.

Er...

That's it.

Phew, that's alright then. We're perfectly safe continuing to do next to nothing about Ukraine. It'll all end well.

Saturday, 17 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo's brilliant, poignant cover after the fatal attacks on its offices, depicting Mohammed as on the side of the victims

Following last week’s fatal shootings in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, Monday night’s superbly-timed Panorama: The Battle for British Islam gave an insight into Islamic radicalism and the narratives which feed it.

The most notable thing, as a number commented on Twitter during the programme, was not so much that it was telling a few home truths about radicalism on prime-time television; but that it was being broadcast on the BBC, the heart of the liberal media establishment. (It is also a great tribute, incidentally, to why we still need public-service broadcasting, the Beeb being practically alone, among its not-so-brave British mainstream media competition, in showing the offending Charlie Hebdo cartoons.)

It was also possibly the first mainstream documentary which has homed in, correctly, on the poisonous “grievance narrative” – that Muslims are oppressed in Britain, singled out and victimised for their beliefs – which, as the program points out, is helping drive young Muslims away from their families and towards jihad. Racism exists, yes: but it also exists in non-Muslim ethnic communities, where the results are undeniably less extreme.

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Just one rider to the whole Charlie Hebdo affair. I did not mention that, after the killing in the magazine's offices, a second incident in France resulted in deaths of (what we presume to be) Jewish customers in a kosher food shop.In an interview today for The Atlantic, French prime minister Manuel Valls says what I have never yet heard a British leader do (my bold highlighting):

“It is legitimate to criticize the politics of Israel. This criticism exists in Israel itself. But this is not what we are talking about in France. This is radical criticism of the very existence of Israel, which is anti-Semitic. There is an incontestable link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Behind anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”

This is not the same as saying Israel should not be criticised, of course it should. But now look at this from the Free Dictionary:

Zi·on·ism(zī′ə-nĭz′əm)

n.

A politicalmovementthatsupportsthemaintenanceandpreservation of thestate of Israel as a Jewishhomeland,originallyarising inthelate1800swiththegoal of reestablishing a Jewishhomeland in theregion of Palestine.

Gosh. So, it's basically about whether you think it's ok for Israel to continue existing. So, yes, I'm a Zionist; it's a pretty broad church, isn't it? Note it doesn't say anything about democracy, human rights, having a likeable Prime Minister, etc., although it's still arguably got a better record on both than pretty much any other country in the region anyway. Zionism, then is just about whether you think it should exist.However, if you start from the premise, not of criticism, but of anti-Zionism, that it's got no right to exist at all, you cease to be stating mere political opinion and move onto much more questionable territory. Because you are, logically, opining that all those Jews who currently live in Israel should either be deported or otherwise disposed of. But no-one, it seems, wants to call that out, glaringly obvious though it might be.Bravo, Manuel Valls. If only our politicians had your couilles. If only.

Saturday, 10 January 2015

Regular readers will know that we have an occasional series, "The Guardian reaches a new low", linking to particularly obnoxious pieces that that august organ sees fit to post to its website, Comment is Free.

However - credit where it is due - the Guardian, uncharacteristically for recent years, reacted modestly well to this week's outrage, a terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, in which at least twelve people died. Over a cartoon, for heaven's sake.It even managed to organise a solidarity event where m'good comrade Nick Cohen spoke, coming down for once on the right side between modern Islamist fascism and free speech. Perhaps with the pending departure of its editor, Alan Rusbridger, it is finally starting to clean up its act, although, since he will anyway become the chair of the Scott Trust, its governing body, that is probably too much to hope for.Ok, so it did the usual apologist piece, where the cold-blooded murder of civilians was all blamed on the West:

Given the attack was apparently over a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed, he decided that it was open season on all cartoons, no matter how vilely racist they might be. I invite you to click on this link and observe the pretty nasty cartoons he elected to post. You need a pretty strong stomach.

Essentially his argument is this: if you laugh at Muslims you must be able to say anything you like about Jews. That classic resort of the logically barren: whataboutery. Oh yes, that may be awful, but what about this? Or, in this case, this may be acceptable, but then [insert something utterly unacceptable] must be, too.Note how he equates the magazine's mocking of Islam and Islamists with the overt racism of Carlos Latuff, a deeply unpleasant cartoonist known to readers here for his Holocaust cartoons (see here). But he does not try and say "Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are bad, so these ones are equally bad". No, in fact, Latuff he refers to approvingly as "brilliantly provocative", "not-remotely-blasphemous-or-bigoted". You judge for yourself. And even if these are his less horrific cartoons, please check out these. Holocaust and cartoons are not really things which go together, I'm sorry.No conception at all from Greenwald, of course, that race and religion are different concepts, and that one can perfectly well mock a religion without resorting to racist canards (Jews with big noses, Jews controlling the world, etc.). Or that you hardly pretend to evaluate the rights and wrongs of a complex conflict between Israel and Palestine by the gross number of corpses racked up on either side.No, the Guardian, in parting company with Greenwald, this time had a lucky escape. Because even they would have baulked at publishing the cartoons that his new, "edgy" vehicle, the "First Look" blog, has done.

Subscribe/Links

About the blogger

Activist, free thinker, Labour Party management team through 2001 and 2005 general elections, responsible for Labour's early web presence and creator of its first-ever national electoral register. Dad to two lovely little girls. Now work as project/programme/interim manager for an evil multinational, with a sideline in political commentary.

Politically think of myself as a loyalist (rather than a parrot). Member of Progress and the Co-op. My posts are vetted only by my, er, own sense of discretion and propriety. I've worked in business for many years, so have no truck with anti-business prejudice. Like social/ethical business, co-operatives and sustainability. Fought one general election and longlisted by NEC panel to be Labour candidate in 2010.